DoD awards $10.9M construction contract to Iron Sword Enterprises, LLC for 870 days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,951,351 ($11.0M)

Contractor: Iron Sword Enterprises, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-08-21

End Date: 2026-01-07

Contract Duration: 870 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: B125 RENO - WVA,NY

Place of Performance

Location: WATERVLIET, ALBANY County, NEW YORK, 12189

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.0 million to IRON SWORD ENTERPRISES, LLC for work described as: B125 RENO - WVA,NY Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of construction services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract is a definitive contract, indicating a commitment to a specific service period. 4. Fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks for the government. 5. The contract is for commercial and institutional building construction, a common federal need. 6. The award is for a significant duration, implying a substantial project.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $10.9 million over 870 days for construction services appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this nature. Benchmarking against similar commercial and institutional building construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. The firm fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government in managing costs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on predefined criteria. With 5 bidders, the level of competition suggests a healthy market response. This level of bidding typically leads to competitive pricing as contractors vie for the award.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through a competitive bidding process, ensuring the government receives the best value.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army will benefit from the construction services provided under this contract. The contract will deliver commercial and institutional building construction, likely supporting military infrastructure. The geographic impact is focused on New York, as indicated by the awardee's location and potential project site. The contract will likely involve a workforce of construction professionals and laborers in the New York region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in long-duration construction projects.
Ensuring compliance with all federal building codes and environmental regulations.
Managing contractor performance over an extended period requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract limits cost escalation risks.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Award to a single entity streamlines management and accountability.

Sector Analysis

The commercial and institutional building construction sector is a significant part of the federal procurement landscape, supporting a wide range of agency needs from office spaces to specialized facilities. Federal spending in this sector is substantial, with numerous contracts awarded annually. This contract fits within the broader category of infrastructure development and maintenance, a consistent area of government expenditure.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Further review would be needed to determine if small business participation is a requirement or if opportunities exist for subcontracting within the broader construction ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the contracting officer and relevant project managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which penalizes cost overruns for the contractor. Transparency is generally maintained through federal procurement databases, though specific project details and performance metrics may not always be publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building and Facilities Management
Department of Defense Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or performance degradation.
Exclusion of sources in competition warrants review to ensure maximum value.
Need for detailed performance monitoring over the 870-day period.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.0 million to IRON SWORD ENTERPRISES, LLC. B125 RENO - WVA,NY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IRON SWORD ENTERPRISES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-08-21. End: 2026-01-07.

What is the track record of Iron Sword Enterprises, LLC with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess Iron Sword Enterprises, LLC's track record. This would involve examining past contract awards, performance evaluations (if available), and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Understanding their experience with similar construction projects, contract values, and timelines would provide crucial context for evaluating their capability to successfully execute this $10.9 million award over 870 days. Without specific historical data, it is difficult to definitively assess their reliability and past performance.

How does the awarded price per day compare to industry benchmarks for similar construction projects?

To benchmark the price per day, we would need to compare the contract's total value ($10,951,351.47) divided by its duration (870 days), which is approximately $12,588 per day. This figure needs to be compared against industry data for commercial and institutional building construction projects of similar scope, complexity, and geographic location. Factors such as labor costs, material prices, and prevailing wage rates in New York would influence this comparison. A detailed analysis would involve consulting construction cost indices and databases specific to the region and project type to determine if this daily rate represents good value for money.

What are the specific risks associated with a definitive contract of this duration and value?

Definitive contracts, especially those with a long duration like 870 days and a significant value of $10.9 million, carry inherent risks. These include potential for cost escalation of materials and labor over time, even with a fixed-price structure, if not adequately accounted for in the initial bid. There's also the risk of contractor performance degradation over an extended period, requiring robust oversight. Changes in project requirements or unforeseen site conditions can lead to costly modifications or delays. Furthermore, the long-term commitment ties up significant resources and budget, potentially impacting flexibility for other urgent needs.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring competitive pricing for construction services?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements. While it allows for a wide range of potential bidders, the exclusion of certain sources might limit the overall competitive pool. The effectiveness in ensuring competitive pricing depends on the justification for the exclusion and the number of responsive bidders that remain. With 5 bidders, it suggests a reasonable level of competition, which should drive competitive pricing. However, if the excluded sources were key players or if the remaining pool was not sufficiently diverse, the pricing might not be as competitive as true full and open competition without exclusions.

What are the historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army in New York?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army in New York would require accessing and reviewing past contract awards data for that specific agency, location, and service category. This would involve looking at the total dollar amounts awarded, the number of contracts, the types of construction projects, and the contractors involved over several fiscal years. Such an analysis could reveal trends in spending, identify key contractors, and provide a baseline against which the current $10.9 million contract can be assessed for its significance within the broader context of Army construction investments in the region.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type for managing budget and performance?

The Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type is generally considered the most advantageous for the government in terms of budget certainty. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes all risks of cost overruns. This means the price is set and will not change, regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This provides a clear ceiling for the government's expenditure. For performance, the FFP structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs and work efficiently to maximize their profit margin. However, it can also lead contractors to cut corners if not properly monitored, or to be less flexible in accommodating minor changes, potentially requiring formal change orders which can increase the overall contract cost.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912DS23B0008

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2359 STATE ROUTE 300, WALLKILL, NY, 12589

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,880,351

Exercised Options: $10,951,351

Current Obligation: $10,951,351

Actual Outlays: $1,959,671

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline